On matches and the box
Sir: The strange thing about the critics and opponents of the Divorce Reform Bill is that almost all agree (pace Lady Summerskill) that reform is needed. They say it again and again; the present law is awful and needs reform, but —wait for it—this particular Bill won't do at all.
Remembering countless speeches along these lines about various reforms in recent years, one is in- clined to dub it the Dilhome-Stevas Defence. It has become a classic defence, aimed at stalemate, and is being played by various enemies of divorce reform with great skill. These players must be recognised for what they are—opponents.
The insidous effect of this defence is that people who genuinely want an effective reform, but do not like the particular form of the Bill now before Parliament, can find themselves ranged with the opponents of reform and doing nothing but criticise the Bill. Auberon Waugh's 'Political Com- mentary' in your issue of 9 February was probably yet another example of this. These critics find the Bill a feeble compromise, a 'sad little stump.' It is not. The Bill has the makings of a really good divorce law, though it is right that those who dis- agree should say so. But what I want to emphasise now is that by offering nothing but scorn and negative criticism of the Bill, these critics are play- ing just the game the anti-reformers want. Not a word of constructive suggestion has come from them, with the exception of John Mortimer's pro- posal that six months' separation by consent and three years if one partner dissents should be the only grounds for divorce (a proposal unacceptable to most MPS, to all the Churches and to the majority of public opinion).
It is much the same with the MPS. I have dis- cussed the Bill with many, including a few who voted against it. Even these agreed the law should be changed and, when pressed, could think of no better proposals for reform. Now that the Bill has received its second reading by a handsome majority of ninety-six and moves on to committee stage, it is time for critics who favour reform to stop mocking and put forward some positive and realistic suggestions for improving it where they think necessary.
As for Mr Waugh's fears that the Bill may be watered down in later stages, I can assure him
there is no question of letting go any of the basic
new provisions (1) that couple should be divorced as quickly and painlessly as possible when the marriage has clearly broken down, (2) that two years' separation is clear proof that the marriage has failed if both think so, (3) that five years' separation is clear proof that any marriage has broken down and (4) that the court has tremendous powers to assure that the dependant partner and children get the best possible financial security, and can refuse any divorce if it would cause hardship.
In one thing Mr Waugh was right The Bill did annoy a few Tory knights and fifteen of them voted against it. But I am glad to say that there
are knights on the side of the angels too, for six of them voted for it.
Alastair Service
Parliamentary Liaison Officer, the Divorce Law Reform Union, 39 Clabon Mews, London SW1
Previous page
